House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Verdirame Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I remember what you might call the good old days before the first reform, when a lot of hereditaries got chucked out. In those days, although there were nominally a lot of Peers—many more than now—people turned up when they knew something. There was a hardcore who turned up to run things for the two parties, but other people turned up when they knew something; they would suddenly appear. Sometimes you would get quite a swelling on something.

Some experts turned up only when they only knew about something. I remember that, once, they were talking about decommissioning the North Sea oil rigs, and very few of us knew anything about it. I have never forgotten how someone up on the Back Benches stood up and gave the Government a talk on it all that completely destroyed everything they had in the Bill. He showed that the people who had drawn up the stuff knew nothing about it, and the Government stood up and said, “Yes, I think we’d better get together and discuss this. Could you come and advise us?” That was the end, and I think it all got sorted out afterwards.

You have to be careful that you do not knock out people who are experts on something. I know that a lot of the stuff that I have done in this House has not been on the Floor but when legislation is coming up and you are preparing for it. I have been in IT, and I remember the identity cards stuff and how a lot of the things were impractical—people do not think about things—as well the digital economy, online identity and all those things. We did briefing papers and stuff, which take a lot of time behind the scenes. That needs to be taken account of, but I do not know how you would do it. But, in principle, I can see the point of this. If someone does absolutely nothing, yes, they need to move on.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will briefly respond to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. If we voted for this amendment now, it would probably apply from this Session, because of Section 2(6). We would probably have to amend that to ensure that it applied from the next Session.

Has the Leader of the House considered whether any change of the rule of non-attendance would necessarily require a legislative change? At the moment, that rule is provided for in statute.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for his amendment and the time that he has devoted to considering this issue, not just since our debates in Committee but over many years. It is an issue that has occupied his mind and those of many of his predecessors as Convenors of the Cross Benches—we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, as well.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Verdirame Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I think my noble friend’s question is directed more to the Government, who have the opportunity to say what they will do on stage 2 reforms. But I will come to my noble friend’s question in a moment, because it is important. In fact, it reflects a conversation that I had with a wise colleague from the Cross Benches who, when I told him I was intending to move this amendment, said, “I hope we will see some humility from those who have previously resisted it”. I hope the fact that I stand here at the opposition Dispatch Box to move this amendment is an expression of that humility.

I remind your Lordships that my noble friend Lord True, along with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, suggested, as soon as the Government were elected, that the by-elections be discontinued in recognition of the Government’s manifesto commitment and in anticipation of the debates on this Bill. But I can be humbler yet. I say to the Government and to noble Lords in every corner of the House: on this, we give in. We will not hold the present Government to the guarantee, binding in honour, made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. We yield to the mandate that they won at the ballot box and will take them at their word that further reform will follow. I welcome what the Leader of the House has said about the establishment of a Select Committee to look into some—not all—of the rest of the Government’s manifesto. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, is in his place. Ohers will remember the royal commission—rather weightier than a Select Committee—that was set up by a previous Labour Government to seek a way forward on stage 2 reforms then. I wish the Select Committee far greater success on this occasion. We will reserve our scepticism and hope to be proved wrong.

But, in return, we urge your Lordships to show the same clemency and generosity afforded to the Law Lords and the Irish representative Peers in days past to our friends and colleagues who sit here by accident of birth and who work just as hard as the rest of us in the service of the country that they love. I beg to move.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I added my name in support of this amendment, which has been so admirably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I agree that the opportunity to adopt this solution should have been seized earlier. Those who tried but failed are right to be frustrated, and the Conservatives deserve the criticism they are getting. But these are not good enough reasons for us to fail to seize this opportunity now.

To begin with, a large number of us never had the chance to vote, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said. As for those who did, it is true that some of them are supporting today what they opposed a few years ago. It is also true that others are opposing today what they supported only a few years ago. Consistency does not serve many well. Everyone is better served by returning to first principles and judging this issue on its merits. This amendment was a good idea when the Bill on which it is modelled was last given a Second Reading in December 2021, and it remains a good idea today.

To put things in some numerical perspective, since December 2021, 13 new hereditary Peers have come to this House through the route of Section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999. If the proponents of those proposals in 2021 had had their way then, as I wish they had—I was not here—we would have 74 former hereditaries today, instead of 87. The difference is just 13.

It is certainly the case that the party that gained the most from the excepted hereditary route to this House was the Conservative Party, and there is no doubt that the biggest loser was the Labour Party. This is not fair because it has resulted in a political imbalance in favour of the Conservatives. However, as the numbers that I have just mentioned show, this is an imbalance that can be corrected. Indeed, this correction is already under way: 49 new Labour Peers were created since January 2024, with 45 since the election. Importantly, this political imbalance did not become a constitutional imbalance. In spite of the number of Conservative Peers, the House remained very effective at scrutinising legislation and holding the previous Conservative Governments to account.

Since 1911, significant changes to the make-up of this House, and to its legislative conventions defining our role relative to the other place, have generally travelled with the chief Opposition on board. We break this habit at our peril. We have often considered the hypothetical scenario of a Prime Minister coming in and appointing large numbers of new Peers to control this House—Lloyd George was not the only one to be so tempted. What stands between us and this scenario is the fact that we are not an elective dictatorship. We are a representative democracy with a complex system of checks and balances that has made it very difficult for a Prime Minister, even with a large majority in the other place, to effect a power grab. Each of the three main political parties with experience of government has historically acted as a check and balance. No party leader has ever achieved full control of his or her party. Indeed, a few of them were humiliated by their party—ask Jeremy Corbyn or Liz Truss.

But what if the next Prime Minister is not the leader of one of these political parties with experience of government? What if he is the leader of a movement that he set up and controls? That the scenario that has to be in our minds for the next election. Reform’s manifesto in 2024 said:

“Replace the crony-filled House of Lords with a much smaller, more democratic second chamber. Structure to be debated”.


I doubt that elections will be his priority. He will want an upper House that he controls in the way that he controls his party. He will seek to achieve this objective through a mixture of removals, appointments and, perhaps, some elections. If this scenario came to pass, we would have to accept the principle that the party that won the election needs a sufficient number of Peers to govern. But we would also be perfectly entitled—indeed, constitutionally mandated—to insist that there should not be removal of Peers en masse unless there is agreement with the main Opposition on the basis of a clear, fair, principled and transparent approach.

On a different note, one hereditary Peer told me that he was not going to vote because he did not think it right for him to do so. I respectfully urge him and anyone in a similar position to reconsider. The idea that we should not vote on constitutional rules affecting the composition of the House because we belong to the affected category of Peers is wrong and would create a bad precedent. Should Peers over 80 abstain on amendments seeking to impose an age limit of 80? Should Peers who might be excluded by a participation threshold abstain on those amendments? Of course not. In all these situations, Peers should vote on the basis of principle rather than personal interest. If our conscience tells us that our personal interest prevents us from fairly assessing the principle, then we should abstain, but if we are genuinely convinced that the principle is right, it is our duty to vote in a way that upholds that principle.

I went back to the Second Reading speeches. It is clear that many of your Lordships expected that, by now, there would be some compromise on the question of the transitional arrangements for the 87 hereditary Peers. Those who expressed such an expectation included many who were fully supportive of the Bill and deeply critical of the attitude of the main Opposition. The key principle is that the resolution of this issue must be clear, fair and transparent. To say, “Vote for this now and we will see later” is none of those things. We are already being asked to pass the Bill and leave for later fundamental questions about the reform of the House foreshadowed in the Labour manifesto, although I welcome the announcement by the Leader of the House earlier.

We cannot be asked to pass this legislation while remaining blind to the transitional arrangements for the 87 Peers. It would not be a good outcome for this House and its credibility if some of the 87 reappeared on a basis that is neither clear nor transparent and does not reflect any prior consensus. The question of what happens to them must be resolved in this House and before this House. This could have been achieved with a firm assurance on the basis of cross-party agreement. We have received no such assurance. It is now our duty to fix this problem by voting for this amendment.

G7 and NATO Summits

Lord Verdirame Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Noble Lords may recall that, when this issue was raised in the House in a Question that I answered a few weeks ago, I said that we had grave concerns about trying to set up an alternative to the tried and tested methods. Aid agencies that had working in Gaza, desperately trying to get enough aid in, were not being used. We know that there were pretty devastating consequences. To deal with that part of the region, the hostages must be released, aid must get into Gaza and then there has to be negotiation. The only way these issues can be resolved is through negotiation and discussion. It is hard work. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness’s point. The aid agencies are absolutely right: they know what matters and how best to get aid to those who need it. They just need to be allowed to do so.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that statement. The Statement says that we need to

“ensure a complete, verifiable and irreversible end to Iran’s nuclear programme”.

Israel identified two existential threats arising from Iran. One was the nuclear programme; the other was the ICBM programme. First, what is our assessment of the extent of the damage caused by the Israeli and US strikes on those two programmes? Secondly, is it also our policy that Iran should not resume the production of ICBMs on the scale at which it was doing before the strikes?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The answer to the noble Lord’s second question is yes, we do think that. Our assessment, which has been quite widely covered, is that the damage done was significant. We are strongly of the view, and I think it is a worldwide view, that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. The danger to the world of Iran having nuclear weapons is enormous. Therefore, the point that he makes about the damage done to those facilities is important.

Conflict in Gaza

Lord Verdirame Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. I have made it clear how the United Kingdom Government view the actions of Hamas. It is a terrorist organisation which has committed atrocious crimes that it must be held accountable for. I hear what the noble Lord says in relation to aid, but we are not getting aid in at all at the moment. We want to use all agencies. Certainly, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, when he was responding on these questions, understood the importance of ensuring that there were facilities to get aid to those people most in need. We will continue to take every measure possible to ensure that is the case. So, I hear the noble Lord, but our priority is to get support to the most vulnerable and those most in need.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as the Minister recalled, a few months ago the Government published an assessment where they concluded that there was a clear risk of breaches of IHL by Israel. The clear risk in the Government’s published assessment was in relation to the provision of humanitarian assistance. The Statement of last week says that the Government feel that this conclusion has been reinforced by the actions of the last three weeks, and that conclusion was obviously the basis for the decision to suspend the arms licences. Can the Government tell us a bit more about the nexus between the British weapons and the alleged or suspected breaches of IHL? In other words, which British weapons did the Government consider could be used to commit which breaches?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I tried to make that clear in response to the Front-Bench questions. Our export licensing criteria, as the Foreign Secretary set out to the House of Commons in September, require him to assess the risk that our exports could commit or facilitate serious violations of IHL. Our reviews concluded that there was a clear risk of Israel breaching IHL, hence the action we took on 2 September, suspending relevant licences to the IDF for use in Gaza. That was the position and it remains so.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Verdirame Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the section in the Labour Party manifesto on constitutional reform begins with praise and recognition for the work of this House in performing its two crucial constitutional functions: scrutinising the Government and improving the quality of legislation. It is against this background that the manifesto goes on to set out specific areas for reform. It would be rather ironic if, in assessing this legislation, we chose to abdicate the constitutional responsibilities that the manifesto recognises. On the contrary, we have to live up to those responsibilities and, while not wrecking the Bill, we can and must do what it takes to improve it.

I would not regard as wrecking amendments those that, for example, introduce a one-off transparent mechanism for converting at least some hereditary peerages into life peerages. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, referred to a similar idea. The objective of ending the connection between hereditary peerages and the right to sit and vote in the House would still be met. Another option is to agree that there will be a one-off special list of peerages, specifically designed to deal with a situation that will not recur. It would be important to keep such a list separate from the ordinary political list that the PM, five months into the new Administration, will understandably need to publish. There has to be transparency about what is agreed. It would not be a great look for the House if it were otherwise.

In that introductory paragraph in the Labour Party manifesto, which is important because it really frames the commitments that we are discussing, it is also said that the House has become too big. In answers to an Oral Question from the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on Monday, the Leader of the House confirmed that the removal of the hereditaries is one of the measures designed to reduce the size of the House. Disappointingly, however, in her Answer the Leader did not commit to a policy of restraint in making new appointments. I ask her to tell us if she can do so now. Does she not agree that, if most of the hereditaries are, in short time, replaced with new life Peers, the Government will have failed to meet their objective through this measure and damaged our credibility in the eyes of the public?

It is important to have clarity on these questions sooner rather than later because they cannot be separated from our assessment of this legislation. If we cannot get clarity on these matters from the Government, it would be proper, in my view, to find ways of securing it in statute. Ours is a constitution still centred on the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, so legislation affecting the composition of Parliament always has the greatest constitutional significance. This Bill is not a minor event; it is a constitutional moment.

I very much hope that the Leader of the House will use not only her diplomatic skills but her constitutional sensibility to ensure that there will be some compromise, so that the House can proceed on this matter with the widest agreement. After all, future holders of her office and, dare I say it, occupants of Downing Street may not possess the same degree of constitutional responsibility as the current incumbents. A particular long-term aspirant to the office of Prime Minister of this country, who currently sits in the other place, comes to mind. When we are dealing with constitutional reform, we must have these scenarios in mind, however unattractive.

I urge the Government to think beyond the present and really about the future, four or five years from now. I am afraid that, like the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, I do not see the future as particularly bright if we proceed as proposed. We already have no limits on the size of the House or on the power of prime ministerial appointment. That situation will be made worse, once all the non-prime ministerial groups of appointments—the Law Lords yesterday, the hereditaries today and the Bishops tomorrow—are shut down and if it becomes acceptable to legislate on the composition of the House without that wider support.

We would fail in our constitutional responsibilities if we simply relied on a vague commitment that the outstanding matters will be addressed later. Of course, we cannot address all outstanding matters now through this legislative vehicle. But this is certainly the time for some clearer commitments, clearer convention and, where necessary, for targeted improvements to the Bill that help us move in the right direction.

House of Lords Reform

Lord Verdirame Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to participate in this important and timely debate. I am not sure whether I am at an advantage or a disadvantage, but I do not have the sense of déjà vu that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, just commented on, alongside a number of other noble Lords. This is my first debate on Lords reform.

Many of today’s interventions, and many comments in the public sphere, focus on the size of the House. I accept that size is an important question and that, in particular, our size relative to the other place may contribute to negative perceptions. However, we should not allow perceptions to take over reality, and we should not lose sight of what that reality is. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, put it, we are a full-time House made up of part-time Members. Moreover, the fact that we have careers outside the House is crucial to our ability to discharge our core constitutional function, which is to provide supervision and scrutiny through expertise and experience. So yes, there seems to be a public perception about there being too many of us, but let us not frame the debate about Lords reform in a way that amplifies that perception. Let us not accept it, at least without some context, and certainly let us avoid the pejorative comparisons that are often made.

There is a separate question that is even more important than size. How far can a Government go in changing the composition of the House without undermining its legitimacy? In theory, there are no set limits to the number of new Peers that a Prime Minister can appoint; by the same theory, a new Government could come in and fundamentally alter the composition of the House. Lloyd George famously threatened to do so. If that threat ever came to pass, this House would lose its legitimacy almost immediately.

The British constitution has various examples of things that can happen in theory but just do not happen in practice, of powers that are subject to few or almost no limits in theory, but that are in practice limited by constitutional conventions, political self-restraint and past practice—even where that past practice does not have the legal force of a binding precedent.

Using the very helpful data dashboard produced by the Library, I had a look at the most recent practice. In the 1990s, the average number of peerages created per year was 34. In the 2000s, it was 24. It was 31 in the 2010s and in the current decade it is so far 38. I am one of the beneficiaries of the largesse of this decade. Prime Minister Blair appointed about 36 Peers per year. Prime Minister Cameron appointed about 39 per year, and Prime Minister Johnson appointed about 35 per year. If one factors in the size of the House, which of course varied under these premierships, the average impact ratio—if we can call it that—of each of these PMs on the composition of the House ranged from 3% to 5% a year. Of course there were years, typically at the beginning of a Parliament, where most of the appointments would have been made.

The decision that had the biggest impact on the composition of the House was the removal of the hereditary Peers in the first term of the Blair Government, but that removal, as we have heard, was not done unilaterally by the Government of the day. There was a compromise to ensure wider political support. This suggests that it would be very unwise for the Government to dig in their heels on the hereditary Peers Bill without seeking to secure all-party support and without striking some compromise.

It is not difficult to see what that compromise might look like. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, alluded to the possibility of at least some hereditary peerages being transformed into life peerages. There was also considerable support—perhaps even overwhelming support—for the proposals contained in the Burns report and the proposals made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. Why not build on that consensus?

What must be avoided is a situation in which the expulsion of 92 Peers is done in a fractious way and is followed by the appointment of very large numbers of new Peers, perhaps also in order to fill the vacuum created by the introduction of a retirement age. If this is the direction of travel, I am afraid that any improvement in public perception deriving from a reduction in size would be far outweighed by the perception that our composition has been so fundamentally altered by one Government that we can no longer be credible as a Chamber of wise and independent counsel and scrutiny.

Sudan

Lord Verdirame Excerpts

Friday 13th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, for tabling this debate and for his insightful remarks in opening it. I welcome the appointment of a UK special envoy on Sudan.

Based on various reports, the UN’s position is that the consent of the Sudanese Government is required for the delivery of humanitarian relief to Sudan, including to parts of Sudan not controlled by the Sudanese Armed Forces. The same position was taken in the Syrian context, where the UN and some humanitarian organisations said that the consent of the Assad regime was a legal prerequisite for humanitarian supplies. Together with other international legal experts and practitioners, including Judge Richard Goldstone, former judge Bruno Simma and former president of the ECHR Sir Nicolas Bratza, I was a signatory of a letter which explained why this position is not correct as a matter of law and that cross-border humanitarian aid into Syria in that case is lawful, even without the consent of the host Government.

There are of course policy or operational reasons that may require humanitarian agencies to co-ordinate with the authorities that are in effective control of a particular area and sometimes with the officially recognised Government, even if it is not in control of that area. However, the position that consent is legally required is fundamentally misconceived and has a very practical impact on the ground.

The Human Rights Watch briefing that we all received says that both parties—but particularly the SAF—are responsible for wilfully obstructing aid, including to areas controlled by the RSF. Professor de Waal, who was referred to earlier and with whom I had a very informative exchange before the debate, estimates that 90% of the hungriest people in Sudan are in areas controlled by the RSF. Of course, if SAF consent is required, all it needs to do to obstruct aid to those areas is to say no.

The Minister mentioned that the SAF is being urged to remove all restrictions on aid, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, said, more is needed. The SAF is under an obligation to facilitate humanitarian relief. If it does not comply with that obligation, sanctions should be imposed.

Britain, under different Governments—Labour to coalition to Conservative—supported the more controversial principle that it is permissible in some cases to use military force to alleviate humanitarian suffering. That was the legal basis on which we relied for the intervention in Kosovo in 1999. It would be inconsistent with that settled position that different Governments have taken if the view were now taken that the peaceful provision of humanitarian assistance always requires the consent of the host state.

Can the Minister please confirm that the position of the British Government remains that in the extreme circumstances of humanitarian suffering that we are seeing in Sudan, international law does not require the consent of the host Government to the peaceful provision of essential humanitarian assistance by the UN and other international humanitarian agencies? Can he also reassure the House that the Government will advocate this position robustly at the UN, including in two weeks from now, when General al-Burhan is expected in New York?

I too echo the various comments made on the significant shortfall that has arisen on the UN Sudan appeal. It should also be noted that the appeal is seeking only $2.7 billion for Sudan for 2024. That sum is grossly inadequate. By comparison, the appeal for the Occupied Palestinian Territories is $3.4 billion. Of course, it is a very dramatic situation in Gaza, too, but Sudan is a much bigger area with a bigger population. If one looks at the IPC map of that region, one sees that Sudan is surrounded by countries that are themselves in extreme food crisis or food emergency—so classified as 3 or 4 on the IPC scale. Unless a much larger operation is mounted—something similar to Operation Lifeline Sudan in the 1990s—the situation will get much worse and the predictions being made of millions of people losing their lives will, tragically, come to pass. Can the Minister please tell us whether the Government agree that a much bigger operation is needed, and inform us on what steps the Government propose to take to support the development of a large-scale civilian protection operation?

Finally, I refer to the role of the UAE in this conflict —a number of noble Lords have made similar points, including the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the noble Lords, Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Bellingham, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds.

The UN panel of experts reported in January 2024 that the RSF has managed to upgrade its weaponry to include drones and anti-aircraft weapons. Human Rights Watch has referred to various reports of deliveries by the UAE of weapons to the RSF via Chad. The panel found reports of UAE deliveries to the RSF to be credible. In the light of that, it is important for us to know what assessment the Government make of those very serious allegations against the UAE, which is obviously a partner of the UK. If the UAE is delivering weapons, in breach of an embargo, to the RSF, an organisation which is responsible for some of the gravest violations of IHL rules on the conduct of hostilities, this would be a very serious development and one which I imagine would have an impact on decisions on arms exports from the UK to the UAE. Will the Government update the House on their latest assessment of that situation, and of the role of the UAE in providing support to the RSF?

On a final note, I noticed that the portfolio of the Minister’s predecessor as Minister for Africa included north Africa and the Middle East. That allocation of responsibility made a lot of sense in the context of the Sudan crisis, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, brought into sharp relief. The Horn of Africa and Sudan are becoming geopolitically part of the wider Middle East. One solution would be for the Minister’s portfolio to be expanded. If that cannot be arranged, does he agree that it is crucial for the Middle East to be very much part of the diplomatic efforts on Sudan? There is simply no solution to this crisis that does not involve Abu Dhabi and Riyadh.